THEORIES OF THE REDACTIONS OF KINGS

Gary N. KnoppersTh e Pennsylvania State University

Th e redaction history of Kings is rarely discussed without also address-ing the redaction history of other books in the Former Prophets or, more broadly, other books in the Enneateuch. Th at this is so refl ects some basic facts. First, as the MT and the Versions readily attest, the book of Kings continues the narratives that conclude the book of Sam-uel. Th e book of Samuel introduces the monarchy of Saul and David and the book of Kings begins with the story of Davids fi nal years and the rise of Solomon. Indeed, the titles of 1 and Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings in the LXX bear witness to this narrative unity, Basilein A, B, , (1, 2, 3, and 4 Reigns). Second, some of the characteristic vocabulary, style, and themes found in earlier books, especially those found in Deuteronomy, are also found in Kings. Th ird, the writers of Kings cite specifi c earlier passages and themes from Samuel, such as the citations of and allusions to the Davidic promises (2 Sam 7), in their own work. Fourth, the Deuteronomistically-worded speeches, prayers, and summarizing refl ections that orchestrate the transitions between major epochs within the monarchy are also found in certain books that precede Kings in the Hebrew canon (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel).1 Fift h, certain motifs, such as the prophecy-fulfi ll-ment schema that operates on both short-range and long-range levels, tie Kings to the books that precede it in the Hebrew canon.2

Beginning with an overview of the case for viewing Kings as part of the Deuteronomistic History, this essay will review various attempts to identify two or more redactional strata within the book. My article will

1 Th e LXX includes the book of (Ruth) in the historical books aft er (Judges) and before Basilein A (1 Samuel), probably because the story of Ruth is situated within the era of Judges (Ruth 1:1).

2 H. Weippert, Geschichten und Geschichte: Verheissung und Erfllung im deu-teronomistischen Geschichtswerk, in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leu-ven, 1989 (1991) 11631 [translated in G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (SBTS 8; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000)].

70 gary n. knoppers

then discuss the recent arguments for separating Kings as a distinct redactional unit from the books preceding it in the Hebrew canon. Th e essay will end with some concluding observations about the many diff erent directions contemporary scholarship has taken to explain the compositional history of the book of Kings.

1. Kings as an Integral Part of the Deuteronomistic History

Th e connection between Kings and the books that immediately pre-cede it in the Hebrew Canon (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel) is most oft en expressed in terms of the hypothesis of a Deuteronomis-tic (or Deuteronomic) History (DH).3 Th is common view owes much to Martin Noths seminal study, in his berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (original edition in 1943), which emphasized that the books of Deuteronomy through Kings constitute a continuous literary work identifi ed by a basic homogeneity in language, style, and content.4 In this theory, the Deuteronomistic writer incorporated the old Deuter-onomic law into the beginning of his work, framed it with Mosaic speeches, and added other sources-stories of conquest and of defeat, prophetic tales and speeches, and royal annals and records. Th e Deu-teronomist ordered and shaped these materials, introduced his own distinctive chronology, and inserted his own comments and speeches, sometimes in the mouths of major characters such as Solomon (1 Kgs 8), at critical junctures in his work. Noths study was directed against

3 It is beyond the scope of this work to furnish a complete history of criticism. A helpful recent overview of criticism on the DH may be found in T. C. Rmer and A. de Pury, Lhistoriographie deutronomiste (HD): Histoire de la recherche et enjeux du dbat, in A. de Pury, T. Rmer, and J.-D. Macchi (eds.), Isral construit son histoire: lhistoriographie deutronomiste la lumire des recherches rcentes (Le monde de la Bible 34; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996) 9120 [transl.: Sheffi eld Academic Press, 2000]; while a helpful overview of recent criticism specifi cally on Kings may be found in M. Avioz, Th e Book of Kings in Recent Research (Part I), CBR 4.1 (2005) 1144; M. Avioz, Th e Book of Kings in Recent Research (Part II), CBR 5 (2006) 1157.

4 As Noth and others have pointed out [especially M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 32060], Deuteronomic (or Deuteronomistic) style is characterized by distinctive vocabulary and diction. Th is style can be imitated, but this is no reason to reject its importance altogether as one means to discern Deuteronomistic authorship. M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2nd ed.; Tbingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957).

theories of the redaction(s) of kings 71

those earlier scholars who concentrated solely upon isolated books without recognizing their relationship to others within the DH and to those who attempted to identify strands within the DH continuous with or analogous to Pentateuchal sources.

Th ematically, Noth viewed the DH as a pessimistic work that chron-icled the record of Israels existence in the land to censure it. Although there were highpoints in this long story, such as the construction of the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 68), such positive events could nei-ther prevent the monarchys eventual downfall nor provide a basis for future hope. In Noths view, the history of Israel in the land, written by a single author for his own interests, presents the past as a record of ever-intensifying decline that ends in disaster-the Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom in the late-eighth century (2 Kgs 17) and the Babylonian exile of the southern kingdom in the early-sixth century (2 Kgs 2425).

Noths views have been developed, refi ned, and qualifi ed in some recent scholarship. Hoff mann traces an elaborate pattern of regres-sion and reform throughout the story of the monarchy.5 Van Seters both defends the essential unity of the DH through a comparison with ancient Near Eastern and Greek historiography and argues that some large sections of this work, such as the so-called court history or suc-cession narrative (2 Sam 920*; 1 Kgs 12*), were later interpolations.6 Noth acknowledged many such later insertions, but recent scholarship has added more. Rof argues that many of the prophetic stories found in Kings date to the postexilic age.7 Similarly, McKenzie accepts the concept of a DH, but contends that many of the northern prophetic stories represent later interpolations into this work.8 Th e work of Susanne Otto also deals with the northern prophetic stories, but pos-its a longer and more elaborate sequence of stages in composition: an exilic Deuteronomistic level, as well as three late exilic and postexilic

5 H.-D. Hoff mann, Reform und Reformen. Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66; Zrich: Th eologischer Verlag, 1980).

6 J. Van Seters, In Search of History, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983 [repr.: Eisenbrauns, 1997]).

7 A. Rof, Th e Prophetical Stories: Th e Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Th eir Literary Types and History (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988).

8 S. L. McKenzie, Th e Trouble with Kings: Th e Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991).

Star9Highlight

72 gary n. knoppers

post-Deuteronomistic levels each of which involved the interpolation of new materials.9

Th e study of Mullen explores how the Deuteronomistic story of the monarchy creates a new national and ethnic myth, cast in the form of a history written during the Babylonian exile, which both explains the past and provides a paradigm for the reformation of a new Israel.10 Van Keulen conducts a very detailed study of the reign of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:118) and defends an exilic date for the substance of the Deuteronomistic commentary in this passage, while also allowing for several later interpolations.11 Some scholars, while not necessarily agreeing with Noths exilic dating of the DH, have found it helpful to conceive of this writing as a single entity, but argue that this long work was the product of a scribal school. Nicholson and Weinfeld, for example, think that the DH went through an extensive editorial process beginning in the eighth (or seventh) century and continuing into the Neo-Babylonian period.12 Recently, Person has added a new twist to this theory by proposing that this slow process of development came to a major conclusion only during the Persian period.13

Writers working with the so-called new literary criticism, such as Cohn,14 Long,15 Hobbs,16 Savran,17 and Walsh,18 stress the coherence of the DH by treating it as a complicated, dense, and carefully craft ed work of art. Th ese scholars work with diff erent methods, but approach the text from a strictly synchronic perspective. Whereas source criti-cism and redaction criticism see tensions, repetition, gaps, contradic-tions, and stylistic variations as keys to uncovering disparate sources or

9 S. Otto, Jehu, Elia, und Elisa: die Erzhlung von der Jehu-Revolution und die Kom-position der Elia-Elisa-Erzhlungen (BWANT 8/12; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001).

10 E. T. Mullen, Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).

11 P. S. F. van Keulen, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists (OTS 38; Leiden: Brill, 1996).

12 E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967); M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).

13 R. F. Person, Th e Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2002).

14 R. L. Cohn, 2 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000).15 B. O. Long, 1 Kings. (FOTL 9; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984); B. O. Long,

2 Kings. (FOTL 10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).16 T. R. Hobbs, 1, 2 Kings (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1989).17 G. Savran, 1 and 2 Kings in R. Alter, R. and F. Kermode (eds.), Th e Literary

Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987) 14664.18 J. T. Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996).

theories of the redaction(s) of kings 73

layers of composition, this particular form of literary criticism accounts for these same features by recourse to techniques of repetition, point of view, reported and reporting speech, inclusions, small- and large-scale symmetries, and wordplays. In this context, scholars have also explored the important interplay between composition and reception history. Starting from the vantage point of the last event referred to in Kings, the mercies shown to King Jehoiachin in exile (2 Kgs 25:2730), Linville,19 for instance, explores how the exilist book of Kings may have been understood during the Persian period.20

In spite of the positive reactions to Noths work, many scholars have been unwilling to accept his proposition that one major editorial hand was responsible for the complete work. To begin with, there are seri-ous issues at the fundamental level of textual criticism that would seem to belie such a simple development of the text. Th e work of Noth coin-cided with a back to the Masoretic Text movement in biblical stud-ies on the continent. With the discovery of a variety of Hebrew texts at Qumran, some of which resemble the Greek witnesses to certain biblical books, scholars have gained unprecedented insight into the development of the biblical text in the last centuries BCE and the fi rst centuries CE. Th e issues of textual criticism and the use of the Septua-gint are treated in more detail elsewhere in this volume, so there is no need to delve into these matters at any length here. Nevertheless, it is relevant to note that, as a variety of scholars have shown, many of the variants among the Hebrew, Greek, and Old Latin texts of Kings do not constitute tendentious alterations of a standard and fi xed text, but rather form genuine witnesses in their own right to diff erent versions of the text in the development of this particular writing. Readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls and from the Versions can refl ect earlier stages in the process of editing and redacting the biblical text than are refl ected in the received rabbinic text. Hence, the clear boundary that Noth and others assumed between lower criticism (e.g., textual criticism) and higher criticism (e.g., historical criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism) can no longer be maintained.

19 J. Linville, Rethinking the Exilic Book of Kings, JSOT 75 (1997) 2142; J. Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: Th e Past as a Project of Social Identity (JSOTSup, 272; Sheffi eld: Sheffi eld Academic Press, 1998).

20 See elsewhere in this volume for how the material in Kings was appropriated, reworked, and recontextualized in later works, such as Chronicles.

74 gary n. knoppers

Perhaps two of the areas in which Noths views have encountered the staunchest resistance are purpose and theme. Merely with a view to the theological interplay of thematic motifs evident in Kings, his somber assessment has been challenged by a great variety of scholars. Von Rad,21 Cross22 and others point to the important role that the Davidic promises play in delaying and mitigating divine punishment (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:1113, 3135). Corresponding to the role of the Davidic promises in the history of Judah is the negative role of the sin(s) of Jeroboam in the history of the northern kingdom.23 Dietrich24 and others have underscored the importance of individual prophets and the value of the prophetic institution in the history of the northern monarchy. Even the choice of a national entity as the subject for the writing of a history is a highly-important decision. Given the creation of an Assyrian province named Samaria in the eighth century and the existence of two distinct provinces of Samaria and Judah in the Persian period, the use in Kings of Israel for the people in general and for the northern kingdom in particular is fraught with social, religious, and political meaning.25

Th e function of King David as a comparative fi gure, a paradigm for subsequent monarchs to emulate, has been underscored by a num-ber of commentators.26 For von Rad, King Jehoiachins release from prison, narrated at the close of the book (2 Kgs 25:2730), plays a particularly critical role, adumbrating the ultimate revival of Davids line and signaling that the DH ends with a measure of optimism and not with a fi nal judgment.27 Disagreeing with both Noth and von Rad, Wolff cites the importance of turning () to Yhwh in Deuteron-

21 G. von Rad, Old Testament Th eology (2 vols.; New York: Harper & Row, 1962).22 F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Reli-

gion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973).23 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic.24 W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte (FRLANT 108; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht, 1972).25 E. T. Mullen, Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries; J. Linville, Israel in the

Book of Kings; K. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998). Compare the use of Israel in Chronicles, in some instances, to refer to the southern kingdom and the use of Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah as a term for the returnees and their descendants.

26 See, for example, I. W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172; Ber-lin: de Gruyter, 1988).

27 G. von Rad, Old Testament Th eology; G. von Rad, Th e Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).

theories of the redaction(s) of kings 75

omy, Judges, and Kings to argue that the DH advances an element of hope to its readers. Divine judgment does not entail Israels doom but calls the expatriates to repent (), because the peoples return () to God can elicit Gods compassionate return () to them (1 Kgs 8:4653).28

Th e work of Wolff indirectly hints at the import of another motif in Kings-the enduring signifi cance of the Jersualem Temple, the house for the name of Yhwh (2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 3:2; 5:17, 18, 19; 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48; 9:7) as a unifying symbol for the entire nation.29 Naaman is therefore right to insist that continuity of cult is one of the major themes of the Deuteronomistic treatment of the monarchy.30 Even those passages in Kings that announce the future divine judgment on the temple may be read as underscoring the singular status of this par-ticular shrine.31 Associated with the stress on Yhwhs connection to the temple is the stress on Jerusalem as the city Yhwh has chosen (1 Kgs 8:16, 44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:27), the place where God has placed his name (1 Kgs 9:3; 11:36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:4, 7).32

Th e emphases on the privileged place of Jerusalem, the divine prom-ises to David, the integrity of the people (both Israel and Judah), the continuing relationship between Yhwh and his people, and the divine election of the temple suggest that the Deuteronomist(s) had more of a positive agenda than Noth thought. Indeed, the very fact that the writers of Kings composed a centuries-long account of the monarchy that highlighted the value of a variety of institutions, mostly but not exclusively southern, suggests that although they stressed the northern

28 H. W. Wolff , Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, ZAW 73 (1961) 17186 [translated in W. Brueggemann and H. W. Wolff (eds.), Th e Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975)].

29 T. N. D. Mettinger, Th e Dethronement of Sabaoth: Sudies in the Shem and Kabod Th eologies (ConBOT 18. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982); R. Albertz, A History of Israe-lite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994); G. N. Knoppers, Prayer and Propaganda: Th e Dedication of Solomons Temple and the Deuteronomists Program, CBQ 57 (1995) 22954.

30 N. Naaman, Th e Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers, JSOT 65 (1995) 3753.

31 G. N. Knoppers, Yhwhs Rejection of the House Built for his Name: On the Signifi cance of Anti-Temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History in Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, and O. Lipschits (eds.), Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naaman, (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 21138.

32 S. L. Richter, Th e Deuteronomistic History and the Name Th eology: leakkn em m in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002).

76 gary n. knoppers

and southern exiles as catastrophes for their readers, they also looked beyond them to what could be learned from these times of national defeat, humiliation, and loss. Th e positive emphasis on distinct themes indicates that the editors of this work conceived of certain beliefs, practices, and institutions as having enduring value beyond the time of death and destruction that characterized the early-sixth century in much of Judah.

We have been discussing issues of text, theme, and purpose as they relate to the relationship between the redaction of Kings to the larger Deuteronomistic History, but there have been some attempts to move beyond the margins of this literary work in discussing the editorial context of Kings. Some scholars have sought to revise Noths views by, among other things, bringing a wider range of biblical literature into view. Th us some speak of a Primary History consisting of the books of Genesis through Kings.33 Similarly, Kratz,34 Otto,35 and Achenbach36 explore the long process leading to the redaction of the Enneateuch. Schmid argues that the DH should really begin with the Exodus, given the prominence of the Exodus theme within the DH itself.37 Th ese scholars have not abandoned the notion of a Deuteronomistic histori-cal writing per se, but they do think that the origins of the work are tied in various ways to the origins of the Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, and Hexateuch.38 Th ey rightly point to the fact that Deuteronomy func-

33 See, for example, S. Mandell and D. N. Freedman, Th e Relationship between Herodotus History and the Primary History (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 60; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); D. N. Freedman, and J. C. Geoghegan, Martin Noth: Retrospect and Prospect, in S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham (eds.), Th e History of Israels Traditions: Th e Heritage of Martin Noth (JSOTSup, 182; Shef-fi eld: Sheffi eld Academic Press, 1994) 12852.

34 R. G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlenden Bcher des Alten Testaments: Grund-wissen der Bibelkritik (BZABR; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000 [transl.: T. & T. Clark, 2005]).

35 E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Litera-turgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (FAT 30; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).

36 R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZABR 3; Wisebaden: Har-rassowitz, 2003).

37 K. Schmid, Erzvter und Exodus: Untersuchungen sur doppelten Begrndung der Ursprnge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbcher des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999).

38 In this context, see also the essays in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.), Das Deu-teronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004).

theories of the redaction(s) of kings 77

tions as a critical hinge, serving as both the conclusion to the Pen-tateuch and as the introduction to the DH. Any theory that seeks to explain the redaction of the DH must also address in some way the compositional history of these other works.

Many have accepted the notion that the redaction of Kings is tied to the larger redaction of the Deuteronomistic work, but view the his-tory of redaction as a more complicated process than Noth envisaged. Cross and Smend challenge Noths notion that the DH was the product of one exilic author. Th ese scholars, and the schools of thought they have come to represent, contend for a series of editions. For Cross, the redaction of Kings is key to the redaction of the DH itself. He argues that the main edition of the DH (Dtr1) was composed during the reign of King Josiah as a programmatic document promoting Josiahs attempt to revive the Davidic state. Th is primary edition was lightly revised and expanded in a second edition (2 Kgs 23:2525:30) during the Neo-Babylonian period (Dtr2). Th e exilic editor (Dtr2) retouched the earlier work, introduced the sub-theme of Manassehs apostasy, attributing the destruction of Judah to his perfi dy, and briefl y narrated the story of Judahs deportation.

Th is theory of editing has sometimes been called an exemplar of the block model of literary composition, because it conceives of the redaction of the DH as basically taking place by major additions occurring in successive stages. Th e work of one writer appends a sub-stantial amount of consecutively-ordered material to the work of his predecessor(s). To be sure, adherents of the dual redaction theory also posit occasional editorial interpolations from the hand of Dtr2 into the earlier work of Dtr1 (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:34b40), but they generally conceive of the exilic editor as only occasionally intruding into the material composed by Dtr1.

Th e proponents of the dual redaction theory have elaborated on Cross hypothesis and applied it in considerable detail to specifi c clus-ters of passages.39 Th ey have also debated whether the contribution

39 For example, R. G. Boling, Judges (AB 6A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975); R. G. Boling and G. E. Wright, Joshua (AB 6; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982); R. E. Friedman, Th e Exile and Biblical Narrative (HSM 22; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981); B. Halpern, Th e Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981); B. Halpern, Th e First Historians: Th e Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); R. D. Nelson, Th e Double Redaction of the Deute-ronomistic History (JSOTSup, 18; Sheffi eld: JSOT Press, 1981); E. Cortese, Da Mos a Esdra: i libri storici dellantico Israele (Collana La Bibbia nella storia 2; Bologna:

Star9Highlight

78 gary n. knoppers

of Dtr2 to Kings and to the rest of the DH may have been more sub-stantial40 or less so.41 Some have focused attention on the northern prophetic tales, contending for a pre-Deuteronomistic edition or col-lection dating to the time of the northern monarchy.42 Others have focused on the work of Dtr1. Dutcher-Walls, for example, combines literary (narrative) criticism with the dual redaction theory to illumine Dtr1s portrayal of Queen Athaliahs reign.43 Knoppers argues that the attention given to the history of the northern monarchy, the fall of Israel, and the reforms of Josiah, can only be understood in the con-text of Dtr1s treatment of the united monarchy of David and Solomon and the causes he imputes to the creation of the dual monarchies of (northern) Israel and Judah.44

If the dual-redaction theory of Cross proceeds according to a block model of composition, the triple-redaction theory of Smend proceeds according to what might be called a layer model (Schichten Modell) of composition. Like Cross, Smend argues for a series of editions, but construes these editions as strata that are present throughout much of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Starting from the base of a Deu-teronomistically-edited set of texts in Joshua (1:79; 13:1b-6; 23) and Judges (1:12:5, 17, 2021, 23) concerned with the observance of law, Smend adds a second nomistically-oriented Deuteronomistic edition

Edizioni Dehoniane, 1985); M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988); G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: Th e Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies; 1: Th e Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (HSM 52; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: Th e Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies; 2: Th e Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah (HSM 53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994); B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); M. Cogan, I Kings (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2000).

40 For example, R. G. Boling, and G. E. Wright, Joshua; A. D. H. Mayes, Th e Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History (London: SCM, 1983); B. Peckham, History and Prophecy: the Development of Late Judean Literary Traditions (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1993). In some respects, the Dtr2 of Mayes resembles the DtrN of Smend (see further below).

41 For example, S. L. McKenzie, Th e Trouble with Kings.42 For example, M. C. White, Th e Elijah Legends and Jehus Coup (BJS 311; Atlanta:

Scholars Press, 1997).43 P. Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: Th e Case of Athaliah and

Joash (JSOTSup, 209; Sheffi eld: Sheffi eld Academic Press, 1996). 44 G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 1: Th e Reign of Solomon and the Rise

of Jeroboam; G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 2: Th e Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah.

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

theories of the redaction(s) of kings 79

(DtrN) to the historically-oriented Deuteronomist posited by Noth (DtrH[istorie]).45

Smends views have been developed and refi ned by a number of scholars, the most infl uential being Dietrich and Veijola. Dietrich revises Smends redactional analysis in his examination of prophetic narratives and speeches in Kings, arguing for a major prophetically-oriented redaction of the DH (DtrP) in addition to the DtrH and DtrN editions posited by Smend.46 Dietrich thinks that DtrP drew upon and edited a substantial body of preexilic prophetic stories dating to the reign of King Manasseh (1 Kgs 172 Kgs 10*).47 Dietrich believes that the work of DtrP was added to the older literary layer (DtrH), but prior to a later nomistic redaction (DtrN). Th e editor/author DtrP assails the political and cultic misdeeds of northern royalty, while DtrN adds material of a nomistic nature, containing assorted legal sayings, the royal traditions of Jerusalem, and the law code itself. Dietrich con-tends that all three redactions date to the Babylonian exile and were completed by 560 BCE, but Smend is inclined to think that there was a longer chronological gap between redactions.48 Smend situates DtrN, which he conceives as representing the work of multiple writers, in the early Achaemenid era.

Veijola accepts the nomenclature proposed by Dietrich (DtrH, DtrP, DtrN), but advocates a diff erent reconstruction of DtrH and DtrN.49 In Veijolas view, DtrH, and not DtrN, stresses the eternal and uncon-ditional nature of the Davidic promises. Reacting to DtrPs negative stance toward kingship, DtrN adopts a mediating position between DtrH and DtrP by democratizing the Davidic promises and by empha-sizing that blessings for people and royalty alike are keyed to obedi-ence. Following the work of Smend, Dietrich, and Veijola, a number

45 Smend and Dietrich originally called the fi rst edition DtrG, but later renamed it as DtrH[istorie].

46 W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte (FRLANT 108; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).

47 W. Dietrich, Prophetie im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, in Th omas Rmer (ed.), Th e Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL 147; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 4765.

48 R. Smend, Die Enstehung des Alten Testaments, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1989).

49 T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (Annalae Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, srie B, Tom 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975); T. Veijola, Das Knigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie (Annalae Academiae Scien-tiarum Fennicae, srie B, Tom 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977).

Star9Highlight

80 gary n. knoppers

of scholars have applied this approach to particular problems or sets of passages in Kings. For example, the treatment of the theme of wisdom in the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 35, 911) by Srki posits pre-Deu-teronomistic material and fi ve Deuteronomistic strata.50 Wlchli, who also works within the Gttingen tradition of interpretation, fi nds three pre-Deuteronomistic stages in the formation of 1 Kgs 311, as well as a succession of Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomistic editions.51

Th e northern prophetic narratives in Kings have also aroused sig-nifi cant scholarly interest. Th e work of Alvarez Barredo, for instance, posits several levels of composition and editing in the Elijah and Elisha narratives.52 Independent tales of the prophets were successively taken up, edited, and supplemented by both DtrP and DtrN. A series of post-Deuteronomistic additions and reworkings resulted in the completion of the Elijah-Elisha cycle (1 Kgs 172 Kgs 2; 3:18:15; 13:1421). By contrast, Keinnens work on the Elijah narratives of 1 Kgs 1719 con-tends for an edition of DtrP of older traditions followed by a later, postexilic anti-Baal oriented edition, and several later post-Deuteron-omistic expansions.53

Th e dual and triple redaction theories of Cross and Smend by no means exhaust the ways in which Noths hypothesis has been revisited, modifi ed, and challenged in the past few decades. Th e compositional model proposed by Rof, for example, departs from both the theory proposed by Noth and the revisions of that theory proposed by vari-ous other scholars.54 Rof sees a disjunction between the redaction of much of Samuel-Kings and that of the books that immediately precede

50 P. Srki, Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der Israelitischen Historiogra-phie: Eine traditions- und redaktionskritische Untersuchung ber 1 Kn 35 und 911 (Schrift en der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 60; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994).

51 S. Wlchli, Der weise Knig Salomo: eine Studie zu den Erzhlungen von der Weisheit Salomos in ihrem alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Kontext (BWANT 141; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1999).

52 M. Alvarez Barredo, Las Narraciones sobre Elas y Eliseo en los Libros de los Reyes: Formacin y Teologa (Publicaciones Instituto Teolgico Franciscano Serie Mayor 21; Murcia: Espigas, 1996).

53 J. Keinnen, Traditions in Collision: A Literary and Redaction-Critical Study of the Elijah Narratives in 1 Kings 1719 (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 80; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001).

54 A. Rof, Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History, in D. Garrone and F. Israel (eds.), Storia e Tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in Onore di J. Alberto Soggin (Bres-cia: Paideia, 1991) 22135 [repr. in Knoppers and McConville (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History].

Star9Highlight

theories of the redaction(s) of kings 81

it. He contends that Noth overlooked or ignored decisive older argu-ments for a major block in the narrative Josh 24 through 1 Sam 12 being fundamentally non-Deuteronomistic in character. Instead, Rof speaks of Josh 24 through 1 Sam 12* as constituting a coherent, (northern) Israel-oriented, pre-Deuteronomistic historical work. Only at a later point was this unit was incorporated into the larger DH that included Kings.

Th e work of Lohfi nk moves beyond previous scholarship in a some-what diff erent way from that of Rof.55 Lohfi nk speaks of two Josianic literary works (not one) and limits the work of one of these (similar to Cross Dtr1) to a much shorter and more thematically-circumscribed set of texts (basically an earlier edition of Kings). Another Josianic document constituted the basis for the material covered by Deut 1 through Josh 22* (DtrL[anderoberungserzhlung]). Both of these liter-ary works were taken up in the larger Deuteronomistic work (Noths DtrG). Two later Deuteronomists completed the work. Rmer has also endorsed the notion of the Josianic edition as being a rather limited document.56 Rmer thinks that such a Josianic redaction was re-edited and greatly expanded during the Babylonian exile and again during the Persian period. Kratz proposes a more complex understanding of the development and growth of the DH. He thinks that the histori-cal work developed by blocks (the earliest being 1 Sam 1:12 Kgs 25* during the Neo-Babylonian era) over a long period of time and was subject to a succession of editions. One of the later redactions brought together the story of the people in an earlier form of the Hexateuch with the story of the people in the monarchy, creating a history that extended from the Exodus to the exile. A series of Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomistic additions to Joshua-Kings, some of which were extensive, rounded out the work. Th e theories of Lohfi nk, Rmer, and Kratz thus combine aspects of both the block and the layer models of composition.

55 N. Lohfi nk, Kerygmata des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks, in J. Jere-mias and L. Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten (Fs. H. W. Wolff ) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 87100; N. Lohfi nk, Th e Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 2223 as a Source for the Story of Israelite Religion, in P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 459476.

56 T. R. Rmer, Th e So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (New York: Continuum, 2005).

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

82 gary n. knoppers

Th e reconstruction advanced by Campbell and OBrien, while indebted to the Cross model, goes far beyond it in speaking of a major prophetic source, comprising a Prophetic Record (1 Sam 1:12 Kgs 10:28) with a series of extensions, as well as a pre-exilic Josianic edi-tion along with a series of later extensions and revisions.57 In this respect, the intricate theory of Campbell and OBrien, like those of Lohfi nk and Rmer, incorporates features of both the block and the layer models of composition.

Some scholars have developed new theories of multiple redactions, citing as evidence variations in the regnal formulae dealing with the evaluation of northern and southern monarchs. Th eir arguments do not fall easily into any one particular pattern, because they approach the redaction history of Kings from a variety of distinct perspectives. Since the variations in regnal judgment formulas do not seem to be random phenomena, commentators have employed the regular pat-terns in these formulas to create detailed theories about the composi-tional history of Kings. Th ese scholars diff er, however, on what types of variations they consider to be signifi cant and how much to make of the variations they admit into their primary corpus of evidence.58 Com-mentators also diff er to the extent that they consider material evidence or literary evidence from other writings (e.g., the prophetic writings, Chronicles) in their reconstructions of the editions they posit in the formation of Kings. Halpern situates the Hezekian redaction within the larger historical context of the late-eighth and early-seventh cen-turies and makes a series of careful comparisons between Kings and

57 A. F. Campbell and M. A. OBrien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Ori-gins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000).

58 For example, H. Weippert, Die deuteronomistischen Beurteilungen der Knige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Knigsbcher, Bib 53 (1972) 30139; W. B. Barrick, Th e King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding of Josiahs Reform (VTSup 88; Leiden: Brill, 2002); A. Lemaire, Les coles et la for-mation de la Bible dans lancien Isral (OBO 39; ditions Universitaires Fribourg; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); Vers lhistoire de la rdaction des Livres des Rois, ZAW 98 (1986) 221236 [transl. in Knoppers and McConville (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History]; A. F. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 12 Kings 10) (CBQMS 17; Washington, DC: Th e Catholic Biblical Association of Ame-rica, 1986); M. A. OBrien, Th e Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92; Freiburg: Universittsverlag/Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); I. W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988); B. Halpern and D. S. Vanderhooft , Th e Editions of Kings in the 7th6th Centuries BCE, HUCA 62 (1991) 179244.

Star9Highlight

theories of the redaction(s) of kings 83

Chronicles.59 Sweeney devotes considerable attention to the eighth- and seventh-century prophets in his understanding of what motivates the pre-exilic Deuteronomists, whereas others pay little attention to this material.60

Some generalizations may be possible, however. First, all of these scholars speak of one or more substantial preexilic editions of the DH and of at least one exilic edition. Second, they view the preexilic edition(s) as substantial and the exilic edition(s) as relatively minor. Th ird, in many cases, major preexilic editions are associated with the reigns of Hezekiah or Josiah (or both). So, for instance, the recent work of Barrick61 isolates four diff erent editorial levels within certain texts of Kings: KH 1 (Hezekian); KH 2 (Josianic, based on a royal memorial inscription); KH 3 (post-Josianic, written in the early exile); and KH 4 (postexilic, adding much of 1 Kings 13). Fourth, these theo-ries regard each distinctive judgment formula as a kind of signature left by a given editor. Th at is, the scholars promoting these multiple redaction hypotheses believe that successive redactors did not disturb or overwrite the work of previous editors. In this way, the very exis-tence of multiple types of royal evaluations is itself viewed as proof for the composite authorship of Kings.

In the context of discussing the possible existence of multiple edi-tions of Kings, one should address an even more complicated theory of the redaction of Kings, one that is also tied to the interpretation of disparate judgment formulas. If the block model of Cross and the layer model of Smend revise Noths redactional analysis by positing two and three editions, respectively, Lemaire contends that these revisions do not go far enough.62 Citing variations in the regnal formulae of north-ern and southern kings, Lemaire posits multiple preexilic editions in addition to the Josianic and exilic editions advocated by Cross. Th is point of view has sometimes been called the rolling corpus model of

59 B. Halpern, Th e Constitution of the Monarchy; B. Halpern and D. S. Vanderhooft , Th e Editions of Kings in the 7th6th Centuries BCE.

60 M. A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: the Lost Messiah of Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

61 W. B. Barrick, Th e King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding of Josiahs Reform (VTSup 88; Leiden: Brill, 2002).

62 A. Lemaire, Les coles et la formation de la Bible dans lancien Isral (OBO 39; ditions Universitaires Fribourg; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); A. Lemaire Vers lhistoire de la rdaction des Livres des Rois, ZAW 98 (1986) 221236 [transl. in Knoppers and McConville (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History].

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

84 gary n. knoppers

composition. Th e history and conception of the Deuteronomistic work evident in Lemaires proposal are therefore quite diff erent from those implicit in the models proposed by Noth, Cross, and Smend. Rather than thinking of a work that underwent one, two, or even three major editions, Lemaire envisions a basic work being constantly updated and expanded over the course of a few hundred years.

2. By the Book: Kings as a Separate Unit within the Former Prophets

In recent times, a number of commentators have expressed profound misgivings about the existence of a carefully unifi ed Deuteronomistic redaction of material stretching from Deuteronomy to Kings. Th ese scholars propose that one should begin instead with each of the rele-vant biblical books and approach such works as discrete literary units.63 To be sure, the representative writings of scholars holding this broad viewpoint operate with a bewildering variety of assumptions and argue a variety of propositions. Nevertheless, a few generalizations are pos-sible. To begin with, there is the book model of composition advo-cated by Westermann,64 McConville,65 and others.66 Th ese writers take issue with both the limits of the DH and its unity. Th ey contend that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings do not collectively constitute a connected story. Only loose connections exist between a series of books-Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings-each of which was composed and edited in a distinctive way.67 In as much as Wester-mann thinks of a Deuteronomistic redaction, he envisions an editor

63 In many respects, this is return to an older position as some never accepted Noths new understanding of the DH. For example, G. Fohrer (Introduction to the Old Testament [Nashville: Abingdon, 1968] 195) comments, we have a series of books Deuteronomy-Kings, each composed or edited in a diff erent way.

64 C. Westermann, Die Geschichtsbcher des Alten Testament: Gab es ein deutero-nomistisches Geschichtswerk? (Th eologische Bcherei Altes Testament, 87; Gtersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1994).

65 J. G. McConville, Th e Old Testament Historical Books in Modern Scholarship, Th emelios 22/3 (1997) 313.

66 For a fuller review, see my essay, G. N. Knoppers, Is Th ere a Future for the Deuteronomistic History? in T. C. Rmer (ed.), Th e Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL 147; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 11934.

67 In this view, the divisions between the primary units within the larger narrative coincide directly with the beginnings and ends of books and are not necessarily mar-ked by speeches, prayers, and summarizing refl ections (so Noth).

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

theories of the redaction(s) of kings 85

lightly supplying theological interpretations of certain events narrated within individual books. Hence, Westermann discards older views of both a Deuteronomistic author and a Deuteronomistic historian.68

Knauf presents a diff erent version of the book-centred theory.69 Like Westermann and McConville, Knauf advocates a return to a focus upon disparate, separately authored books; but, unlike Westermann and McConville, Knauf regards these books as themselves resulting from a series of fundamentally unrelated exilic and postexilic redac-tions. Th e issue is thus not simply that Kings was authored separately from Samuel and the other volumes in the Former Prophets, but also that Kings was repeatedly redacted during Neo-Babylonian and Per-sian period times in a manner not connected to the redaction of other books. Moreover, according to this view, the mode of composition found within Kings may qualify as a type of historiography, but the same cannot be said for most of the rest of the Former Prophets. In sum, Knaufs theory strikes at many diff erent aspects of the prevailing view that the editing of Kings is connected to and continuous with the editing of the rest of the Former Prophets.

Another version of the book-centred theory is promoted by Graeme Auld,70 who sees some connections among the books of the Former Prophets, but also many diff erences in composition, style, theme, and date.71 He advocates what might be called a new version of the rolling corpus model.72 Whereas Lemaire proposes a rolling corpus model to explain the gradual development of the Deuteronomistic account of

68 On this point, McConville diff ers from Westermann. McConville thinks that Deuteronomy through Kings is a history and one that manifests some continuity in characters, themes, and plot.

69 E. A. Knauf, LHistoriographie Deutronomiste (DtrG) existe-t-elle? in A. de Pury, T. Rmer, and J.-D. Macchi (eds.), Isral construit son histoire: lhistoriographie deutronomiste la lumire des recherches rcentes (Le monde de la Bible, 34; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996) 40918.

70 A. G. Auld, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bibles Kings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993).

71 For a more complete overview and assessment, see my commentary, G. N. Knop-pers, I Chronicles 19 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2004).

72 Wrthwein has recently also favored an approach to the DH that begins with Kings as a basis for the composition of the entire work, E. Wrthwein Studien zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW 227; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). In his two-volume commentary on Kings (1977; 1984), Wrthwein works with the Smend model of composition; E. Wrthwein, Die Bcher der Knige: 1 Knige 116 (ATD 11/1; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977); E. Wrthwein, Die Bcher der Knige: 1 Kn. 172 Kn. 25 (ATD 11/2; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).

86 gary n. knoppers

the monarchy, Auld envisions a rolling corpus model to explain the development of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets, extending from Kings back to Deuteronomy. Th at is, Auld begins with Kings and not with the Deuteronomic law code.73 Auld contends that both Kings and Chronicles represent alternate or competing appropriations of an earlier story of Judahs kings. In this view, the theological language refl ected in Solomons visions (1 Kgs 3, 9) and prayer (1 Kgs 8), for example, is part of the shared source and does not comprise the work of the Deuteronomistic redactor(s). Th e writers of Kings add material to the common source that criticizes Solomon and presents him as a devious fi gure who leads his nation astray (1 Kgs 11). Auld dates both the Chronistic History and the Deuteronomistic History to the Persian period. Hence, Aulds work creatively reevaluates the relationships of Deuteronomy to Samuel-Kings and of Samuel-Kings to Chronicles.

Yet another challenge to the supposition that Kings was closely redacted in connection with the redaction of the rest of the DH comes from scholars, who advocate a particular form of the block model of composition. Th is approach is not mutually exclusive with the book-centred approach, because books can be edited to form parts of larger blocks and blocks can be edited to form books. Th e recent monographs of Eynikel on the Josianic reforms74 and Rsel on the development of the DH75 may serve as illustrations of this new challenge. Rsel begins with the formation of a pre-exilic Deuteronomistic literary work (or

73 Even for those accepting the existence of a DH, the issue of the relationship between the old Deuteronomic law-code (the original extent of this work is debated) and the historical work is in dispute. Noth thought that the Deuteronomist used the code as a yardstick to judge the conduct of major characters in his work. Some think, however, that the Deuteronomic law-code was a late insertion. See, for example, J. D. Levenson, Who Inserted the Book of the Torah? HTR 68 (1975) 20333; C. Wester-mann, Die Geschichtsbcher des Alten Testament. Yet others contend the authors of Kings used some form of Deuteronomy, but that the Deuteronomistic use of Urdeu-teronomium was much more sophisticated and complex than Noth recognized. See, for example, G. N. Knoppers, Th e Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship, ZAW 108 (1996) 32946; G. N. Knop-pers, Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: Th e Case of Kings, CBQ 63 (2001) 393415; B. M. Levinson, Th e Recon-ceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic Historys Trans-formation of Torah, VT 51 (2001) 51134.

74 E. Eynikel, Th e Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996).

75 H. N. Rsel, Von Josua bis Jojachin: Untersuchungen zu den deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbchern des Alten Testaments (VTSup 75; Leiden: Brill, 1999).

theories of the redaction(s) of kings 87

book of Kings), extending from Solomon to Hezekiah, that was sub-sequently augmented with new material, such as the condemnation of the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17) and the story of the Judaean monarchy in the seventh and early-sixth centuries (2 Kgs 2125). Th is material was conjoined with the preexisting books of Deu-teronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel.

Eynikel prefers not to speak of a DH, but of a variety of blocks that were written independently: Joshua 11 Samuel 12, 1 Samuel 132 Samuel and 1 Kings 12, and 1 Kings 32 Kings 23.24 Whereas Wes-termann, McConville, and Knauf speak of separately authored, distinct books, Eynikel speaks of distinct blocks that incorporate separately-authored books. Th e diff erent blocks were not brought together until fairly late in the editorial process. According to Eynikel, there were three editions of Kings that relate (or do not relate, as the case may be) to the union of the separate blocks: RI, who wrote sometime aft er Hezekiah, RII (= Crosss Dtr1), who wrote sometime aft er Josiah, and RIII (= Crosss Dtr2), who wrote during or aft er the exile. Th e work of RI and RII did not extend beyond Kings. Later redaction, perhaps by the same author (RIII/Dtr2) who wrote about the demise of the kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 2425), fused the disparate blocks into a larger whole. Hence, in the theories of Rsel and Eynikel, the editorial process that led to the formation of Kings was fundamentally separate from the editorial processes that led to the formation of the rest of the Former Prophets.

3. Concluding Observations

Over the past four decades scholars have taken divergent paths in explaining the redaction history of Kings and the rest of the Former Prophets (sources, blocks, layers, books, interpolations, glosses, or some combination thereof ). Whatever the individual case, most recent studies view the compositional history of the book of Kings as a much longer and more complicated process than Noth imagined some six decades ago. Scholars generally recognize a rich variety of theological commentary within the work. Because this diversity of themes extends to Deuteronomistic compositions (speeches, prayers, summarizing refl ections), one cannot attribute all of the diversity found within the book of Kings to the heterogeneous sources that a single Deuterono-mist incorporated, but did not rewrite, within his larger work. Th e thematic diversity extends to Deuteronomistic commentary itself.

Star9Highlight

Star9Highlight

88 gary n. knoppers

Rather than thinking of the primary composition of Kings as the brilliant work of a single individual living in the Neo-Babylonian era, most current scholars think of this composition as developing by stages over a signifi cant period of time. Seen from this perspective, the individuals (or groups) responsible for the writing of Kings refl ected a living tradition that repeatedly adapted to new challenges and new settings. At this point, certain questions emerge in the discussion as scholars disagree avidly about a variety of important issues: how many changes took place within the Deuteronomistic tradition, how long a process this entailed, the original length and nature of the literary work, the social contexts of the work(s), the amount of heterogeneity within the work, and how many diff erent writers participated in the development of the writing. Looking at developments within the past several decades, one can say both that the old order is passing away and that the new order is much more complex.

Yet, surveying this same period of time also suggests that exercis-ing some degree of caution might be helpful. One of the fundamental assertions of Noth was that a single author brought together a variety of disparate, even contradictory, sources and edited them into his work. Th is basic insight enabled Noth to acknowledge variety of viewpoints in the Deuteronomistic historical work without splintering that work into a long series of redactions, each with its own theological profi le and distinctive Tendenz. Seen from this perspective, the Deuterono-mist did not seek to suppress historically diff erent points of view or harmonize them all into one basic position. Rather, the ancient writer looked back over his peoples past and reacted against certain views, while mediating others. If this understanding of ancient authorship is categorically rejected, as some scholars seem to have assumed that it should be, the number of redactions and insertions (large and small) posited by modern commentators will only continue to multiply in the years ahead.

Star9Highlight